Guns

[Nym90]

Well, I think that the current laws that we have are being adequately enforced. I do support putting more police on the streets in high crime areas, which was part of Clinton's crime bill in 1994. If current gun crimes aren't being adequately prosecuted, then that is the fault of the Attorney General and the Justice Department. The way I see it, it does more harm than good to society to allow guns to be made available for sale if they have no legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Guns that are commonly used for legitimate uses such as target practice or as a hunting weapon should be legal. However, I don't think that a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate use as a weapon other than to kill people.

[Nym90]

Well, I'm not saying that we would just take their word for it when they purchase the gun. Each model of gun needs to be assessed to determine whether or not it has legitimate hunting and sporting value. No one, however, has ever seriously proposed banning any guns which have legitimate hunting value. Shotguns, 30/30 deer rifles, no one will ever make those illegal, obviously, nor is anyone trying to. I think that the NRA loves to use scare tactics about how your guns are going to be taken away, but that's just completely and patently false.
Clinton's crime bill in 1994 proposed banning assault weapons which had no legitimate purpose as a gun other than to kill people. Also, it included several more traditionally conservative ideas such as expanding the death penalty and putting more police on the street. Republicans opposed it though despite this. So if laws aren't being adequately enforced, we should put more police on the streets. It was the Republicans though, and not the Democrats who were opposed to the crime bill in 1994.
It seems to me that the issue of gun control often deals with hyperbole and does not take a hard look at the facts of the specific laws being proposed.

[Nym90]

I don't see any reason why a gun needs to be legal if it has no legitimate purpose other than for killing.
Gun safety locks and a waiting period to undergo a thorough background check are common-sense proposals that will only deter people from getting and using a gun who shouldn't be getting and using one in the first place. They are no real burden to those who have a legitimate need and purpose for a gun.

[Nym90]

No, the 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms of a WELL-REGULATED militia shall not be infringed.

It is obviously not unconstitutional to ban some weapons, such as nuclear bombs, Sherman tanks, AK-47s, Uzis, etc. So clearly, there is no absolute right to arms.

[Nym90]

As for your proposal, CM, I would not feel comfortable having the government have that much knowledge of what its citizens are doing. Not to mention that the GPS chip that was implanted in the gun could be disabled and removed without a tremendous degree of difficulty for someone who knew what they were doing.

[Nym90]

Lol, good point Gustaf.

[Nym90]

Ted Nugent won't beat Jennifer Granholm in 2006...no way. He's way too far to the right.

[Nym90]

The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms, it clearly allows certain weapons to be banned, as no one has challenged bans on nuclear bombs, tanks, etc. So yes, it protects a general right to bear arms, but also clearly allows for regulation of guns. It's a vague amendment, as is much of the Constitution, which was deliberate since the founding fathers wanted to allow some leeway to interpret it as the courts see fit. But it's just wrong to say that the 2nd amendment allows an absolute right to bear arms. That would be like arguing that the first amendment protects my right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. All rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions when the exercise of those rights jeopardize the lives or liberty of others.

And no one as I recall even attempted to strike down the Brady Bill or the assault weapons ban on constitutional terms, either. So if you want to debate the merits of certain guns being legal or illegal, that's fine, but you can't just use the 2nd amendment as a blanket defense.

[Nym90]

Jravnsbo--

That was my point. The 2nd amendment does provide for the right to bear arms, but not an absolute right, and no one has proposed any gun control measures which would be deemed unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment explicitly states that a WELL REGULATED militia is necesary for the security of a free state. So when talking about gun control, there is really no point in bringing up the 2nd amendment since no one is seriously proposing violating it. Obviously the NRA must agree since they have not pursued any constitutional challenges to the Brady bill or the assault weapons ban.

Likewise, the 1st amendment, as I said, does not provide an absolute right to freedom of speech, as it does not protect lying or speech which is intended to incite violence.